Young on Auchinvole

Chris Auchinvole’s speech on gay marriage was widely hailed as one of the best given by a politician in the debate this week on the legislation.

MPs from across the House say it was the best speech of his parliamentary career.

But for thousands of people on social media, the question was: “Who is this Chris Auchinvole?”

He is a 68-year old West Coast-based list MP for National who, until this week, did not know what “trending” was – until he was told that his speech was a hit on Twitter.

His executive assistance printed off 40 pages of comments from Twitter on the speech and that was only 1 per cent of the feedback, he said. There wasn’t a single negative remark.

“Could you be my grandfather?” “Where have they been hiding him?” and “Chris Auchinvole for Emperor” were some of them.

You can see some of the comments here. It was a great speech, and I’m glad so many people got to see his sense of humour, and also his compassion.

Mr Auchinvole insists he had no position on gay marriage until he sat on the select committee considering Louisa Wall’s bill legalising it.

“Hand on heart. It would be quite wrong to say I have any particular sympathy for any particular group. I don’t think that would be honest.

“I know it’s a funny, old-fashioned way of approaching things but I think you have to go with an open mind and be persuaded by argument. That appeals to my Scottish nature. Even if I felt it were wrong, if it made good sense you have to go with it.”

He said there was a big generational difference in the submissions the select committee received, with generally the older submitters saying definitively, “You cannot do this”, and the younger submitters saying, “Why on Earth can’t you do this?”

Sums it up pretty well. But good to have an MP who listens to the submissions. It is very true that Chris went from luke-warm to ardently in favour on the basis of what he heard. It is a good message to submitters that they can make a difference.

Mr Auchinvole said he was sympathetic to the older submitters because they, like him, were taught that homosexuality was immoral, illegal, and criminal.

“People’s reputations could be lost on the basis that people thought they were homosexual, and I always thought that was an injustice.”

He said that at the boarding school he attended over five years, “we lost boys at school”.

Five of 120 boys committed suicide, invariably in the holidays, because, he believes, they were gay.

Scott

At the select committee he struck me as an appeaser that didn’t want to be out of step with the in crowd. He is supposed to be a Christian and a lay preacher at that. But this is a good test for the Christian. Will we stand and fight in this area when the enemy is attacking or will we crumble and drift along with the crowd? Appeasement never works. It didn’t work in 1933 and now in 2013 neither will appeasement succeed.
When I think of Auchinvole I think of the quote from Yeats, ‘the best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity “.

Johnboy

BeaB

Amazing when the media suddenly’discovers’ these MPs. Do you think it would ever occur to them to tell us about any of their other speeches in the House many of which are worthy of wider publication? Of course not.
Even the Select Committee on Solid Energy. Anything broadcast so we can listen too? Of course not.
I know more about the proceedings in the US senate and house of reps than I do about my own. And we now so much aboutthe ins and outs of Australian politics where they still seem to have some real reporters who don’t just witter on about sombreros and who is pretty.
What woeful news we get in this country. The Espiner and Garner comedy act sums it all up, sadly.

eszett

But this is a good test for the Christian. Will we stand and fight in this area when the enemy is attacking or will we crumble and drift along with the crowd? Appeasement never works. It didn’t work in 1933 and now in 2013 neither will appeasement succeed.

Chris A. lost the West Coast seat to Damian O’Connor last election against the trend. Among Canterbury Nats he’s considered a light weight who just goes with the flow. His speech was his typical after-dinner pap. style.

thedavincimode

It was great to see two genuine Christians in the form of Auchinvole and Borrows debate this issue with dignity and compassion and yet still be able to differ. What an example they set for the phoney Christians that frequent this blog.

Auchinvole and Borrows are a reminder that we shouldn’t judge any group by its lowest denominator and the phoney Christians are a reminder that a minority has the capacity to create significant damage for the cause that they purport to represent.

thedavincimode

Jack5

Auchinvole is a Presbyterian lay preacher. The NZ Presbyterian Church made a submission opposing the gay marriage legislation (Definition of Marriage Amendment Bill). So Auchinvole makes his own stand on social and conscience matters. I hope he also stood apart on some of the touchy-feely issues the Presbyterian and other mainstream Protestant Churches have backed.

Auchinvole put his position well, as you might expect from a person with a solid Scottish education and an interesting Sandhurst education.

Auchinvole won the West Coast Tasman seat at the 2008 elections, but Damien O’Connor beat him for the seat in 2011.

As a list MP under the MMP system, because the gay marriage legislation was a conscience vote, Auchinvole has been able to vote on it without being answerable either to anyone in his electorate, or to the political party which made him a list MP.

The West Coast Tasman electorate loser got the same one vote as the electorate winner – but with more freedom.

Johnboy

thedavincimode

eszett

The West Coast Tasman electorate loser got the same one vote as the electorate winner – but with more freedom.

Conscience votes under MMP are undemocratic.

What nonsense. List MPs ate accountable as to the entire country as electorate MPs are. If you don’t like them, don’t vote for National and make it clear it is because of the national MPs who voted in favour of this bill. There, you have held each an every MP, list or not, accountable if they voted for the bill.

With MMP the MPs are way more accountable, especially under conscience vote where they cannot hide behind a party dictate. Philip Field cost Labour way more votes, but he would have easily been re-elected in his electorate.

thedavincimode

Jack5

That doesn’t stop you from putting heat on a local MP, even if that MP votes the way you way you see things. You can still make it a party issue. After all, use of the conscience vote can be regarded as a means of political copout.

bringbackdemocracy

thedavincimode

lol labrator

I’d just assumed that Scott had a few dyslexic moments, read references to Hitler’s Brown Shirts as Hitler’s Brown Shorts and then drawn a perfectly reasonable inference from that sea of post-adolescent bared knees and leather braces.

thedavincimode

Jack5

Yes, but if everyone put heat on the local MP irrespective of the way that MP voted, that will actually create pressure at party central. I’m not suggesting it’s perfect, but it is a response to using conscience as a copout, and also allows the possibility of pressure being exerted irrespective of the fact that it is a conscience vote.

But hey, who cares what the voters think? After all, they’re not “advanced thinkers” like the MPs are.

I tried to post on whale but wordpress didn’t accept my password, but this is approximately what I was going to say.

1) There is no inequality apart from adoption.
2) If it’s about adoption then let’s have a “gays can adopt” debate.
3) If it’s not about adoption then it’s about a word, a label.
4) A global movement throughout the western world has mobilised about a label.
5) This is evidence labels are important.
6) Labels matter in social engineering. This is why the bill is called the “Marriage Equality Bill” when no inequality exists.
7) Ergo this is not about discwimination for there isn’t any, but about social engineering.
8) Social engineering works in generational (25 year) timeframes.
9) Ergo whether or not it affects anyone’s marriage today is irrelevant because that’s not what they’re aiming at.
10) Social engineering doesn’t work unless you have useful idiots: i.e. people who are fooled by the mask.
11) The mask is “human wights” and “discwimination,” but no discwimination exists.

Conclusions:

1) People who support this are morons, useless fools, and totally mental because they clearly can’t think through the simplest social equation even when it happens right in front of their very (stupid) eyes.
2) Apparently at least 41% of us are like this, including various otherwise extremely perspicacious conservatives, including the conservative PM himself.
3) The country is doomed, if even the PM can’t get this simple formula through his thick skull, WTF is going to happen in future, as the younger conservatives come to maturity, for they are even more naive (if this is possible) than the current generation of senior conservative leadership.

Dennis Horne

If (Western) marriage is nothing more than two people wanting to love and live together and play with each other genitals, why do homosexuals want to embrace it? Anyone can do that anyway. Want the relationship documented? Civil union.

Is it because marriage confers some old-fashioned respectability? Marriage has never permitted homosexual acts, and now it will. Such a drastic redefinition is unlikely to have no effect on how marriage is viewed.

Is marriage, the formalisation of a special relationship that has its roots in the beginning of life itself, an institution that has since time immemorial concerned copulation and raising any children, to become nothing more than a comforting word for homosexuals?

Homosexuals are insisting society approves and endorses their homosexual activities. Tolerance was not sufficient. The demand is normalisation of deviance: buggery be the equivalence of mating.

It is narcissistic humbug. Marriage is a concept, it belongs to men and women who are eligible and want to get married, as it always has. It no more belongs to Parliament than does love and sex. The solution to the “problem” of “equality” was always simple. Don’t like marriage? Don’t get married.

Johnboy

Reid

I see no obvious reason why Whale sized gay women cannot get hitched to women of no obvious taste.

Neither do I Johnboy and same with gay guys but why is western society being forced to call such an event a “marriage?”

After all, Helen Clark doesn’t think it should be:

Marriage is only for heterosexuals. The Government is not — underline — not, changing the Marriage Act. That will remain as an option only for heterosexual couples.

Metewia Tuwei doesn’t think it should be either:

Marriage as understood in our society, and as formalised in law, is a specific culturally and historically bound institution. …This bill does not affect the Marriage Act. It does not change in any way the structure, the validity, of the institution of marriage.

And other gays like Tim Barnett and Chris Carter and Margaret Wilson all thought the same thing. Or at least they said they did.

How come they’ve changed their minds now? How come marriage has suddenly not become “a specific cultural and historically bound institution?”

That’s the riddle inside the enigma wrapped in a mystery. Unless of course one draws the obvious conclusion that all those gays above were just biding their time until it was ripe for change, which is now upon us.

Er…

Hooray?

her with a strap-on

You’re not thinking of the enormous dildo the builders apparently found under the bed when they were renovating Hulun’s house are you Johnboy?

Griff

Rodders

Re Auchinvole vs O’Connor.

Of course, O’Connor wasn’t on the Labour list in 2011. Perhaps the West Coaster’s respond to the “trickle down is the rich pissing on the poor” line O’Connor used in a Labour TV ad. Pretty cynical to use that sort of line in an ad IMHO.

Johnboy

Yvette

Dennis – If (Western) marriage is nothing more than two people wanting to love and live together and play with each other genitals, why do homosexuals want to embrace it?

It is all a drive to force majority heterosexuals to accept homosexuals as their equals or ‘normal’ when their way of life has been considered abnormal.
The ultimate aim is probably to have a same sex marriage in a Roman Catholic church seen as normal or at least accepted.
Same with adoption – at present available to parents in a heterosexual marriage but only one partner of a civil union.
It is nothing to do with what physical contortions you and Johnboy may contrive 🙂

Johnboy

bhudson

There is no inequality apart from adoption.

Not true. One group (hetero unioned couples) can be designated as married, the other group (same-sex unioned couples) cannot. That is inequality right there.

Of course while that discrimination of designation exists there also exists an easy mechanism to discriminate against those other couples at any point in the future – by having legislation grant privileges and/or rights to married people and keeping the civil unioned as second class citizens.

If it’s not about adoption then it’s about a word, a label.

If that is the case Reid and it’s just a label; not really all that important in reality, then you would, of course, support the removal of the designation of marriage completely – for all couples and unions. Just the designation ‘civil union’ for all. After all Reid, as you say, it’s just a label…

Ergo this is not about discwimination for there isn’t any, but about social engineering.

Er no. Just because you like to believe that labels are about social engineering Reid doesn’t in fact mean they are. Unless you are also claiming that marriage, and it’s limitation to hetero couples is all about social conditioning of the proles to accept a certain way. You normally decry such engineering Reid. Surely you wouldn’t be so hypocritical as to accept such engineering (labeling) because its suits your world view?

People who support this are morons, useless fools

You could learn something from Auchinvole here. And Chester Borrows. They didn’t see the need to denigrate those who didn’t agree with them.

Social engineering doesn’t work unless you have…people who are fooled by the mask.

Ah, so your friends the illuminati are behind this!! No surprises there. It would seem that, through the lens you choose to view the world, they are responsible for everything bad.

Yvette

Supply your own marseillaise, Johnboy. You didn’t learn with the barbed wire woman did you?
Now you are flirting with a dentist.
For forty years he has looked up noses he’d rather not, into mouths he didn’t want to, and down cleavage he wasn’t allowed to touch. When he unravels he is likely to be very dangerous – Dennis the Menace – I would not let him get his teeth anywhere near it, Johnboy

Tremble, tyrants and traitors, The shame of all good men, Tremble! Your parricidal schemes

Johnboy

Reid

Not true. One group (hetero unioned couples) can be designated as married, the other group (same-sex unioned couples) cannot. That is inequality right there.

Agree bhudson, but point out, that the “inequality” is in the ability to use a word, a label. How can the ability to use a word, a single word, connote discwimination? How? As in, nothing in action is happening, it’s a fucking word. Haven’t you ever heard of sticks and stones may break my bones etc?

Of course while that discrimination of designation exists there also exists an easy mechanism to discriminate against those other couples at any point in the future – by having legislation grant privileges and/or rights to married people and keeping the civil unioned as second class citizens.

Oh dear! It’s [appawently] “discwimination by designation!” Oh doodness! How dasterdly. Almost on a par with say, what real actions have done with ethnic cleansing et al which involves actually killing and torturing people. It’s almost, not quite, but almost as bad as that. Isn’t it? Correct me where I’m misinterpreting your argument bhudson. I mean, crikey. A word. Throw that word. I condemn thee! You have a civil union. Bwahahahahahaha. That’s your argument, isn’t it? As I say bhudson, correct me where I’m wrong.

If I’m not wrong, this means of course doesn’t it that there really doesn’t exist “an easy mechanism to etc etc,” doesn’t it. Yes, it does mean that.

Er no. Just because you like to believe that labels are about social engineering Reid doesn’t in fact mean they are.

This is possibly because you don’t understand the field of social engineering bhudson and your ignorance is not my problem, it’s yours. I’ve explained the power of labels previously and how they work in social engineering but in recognition of the fact it’s an eclectic field I’ve previously in my explanations drawn an analogy with marketing and branding where it works the same, just not in social change but in selling products. And in marketing and branding, companies value their “brand” at millions and billions on their balance sheet. But it’s still just a word. Why the fuck does say, IBM do that, if it wasn’t worth anything, as you, in your roaring profound ignorance, suggest it isn’t? So it’s not just me that believes in the power of a word bhudson, apparently it’s everyone in the marketing and accounting fields, as well.

You could learn something from Auchinvole here. And Chester Borrows. They didn’t see the need to denigrate those who didn’t agree with them.

Yes apparently I’m indeed a lessor being than such luminaries bhudson and I fully accept that, but personally I quite enjoy denigrating utter and complete mentalness wherever it arises. It’s childish and immature I know, but hey, I’m not perfect.

Ah, so your friends the illuminati are behind this!! No surprises there. It would seem that, through the lens you choose to view the world, they are responsible for everything bad.

They’re not my friends bhudson and while I didn’t mention Travistock yes indeed they are behind this. But let me ask you this. If someone isn’t behind this, then how come this issue has arisen across all western democracies at the very same time? How can that all-convenient timing possibly occur, if it’s not orchestrated? The alternative is hallucinating some particularly gay human-wights-aware butterfly somewhere flapped its wings years ago and by accident, this entire campaign just accidentally spread across the entire western world, somehow avoiding all the rest of the world, and just magically brought about all this culmination, which we are witnessing in the parliaments of every single western democracy all at the same time. Which one of those two alternatives do you pick as the most likely cause, bhudson? And if you pick the butterfly, is it because you have no fucking idea who the illuminati are, or are you making an informed decision?

Dennis Horne

@bhudson. What discrimination will you accept? That your surgeon be trained; the profession restricting entry? Your pilot periodically tested and properly licensed? The colour blind are excluded from commercial licences because they cannot pass the medical. They did not choose to be colour blind, they were born that way. What must we do to address this iniquity?

When my wife and I were married in l’Hotel de Ville, we had to produce medical certificates proving we were healthy male and female. Discrimination? Or ascertaining our suitability or qualifications?

So that wasn’t fair? We’ll loosen the prerequisites. What about marrying a goat? No consent. We don’t ask goats if we can cut their throats, so why should we ask them if we can marry them?

Or is it just about fashion? What enough people are persuaded to approve? And populist politicians poulticing poofs?

Scott

Reid is right about Auchinvole and other Christians who make peace with gay marriage. They are what Lenin called “useful idiots” in that they support something that is totally against their interests. Once gay marriage is in place then will come gay adoption. The liberal cry that what consenting adults do is their own business and doesn’t involve minors will be cast aside. Then they will start persecuting the church. They will go for bible believers first. But eventually they will get to Mr Auchinvole.

Reid

Reid is right about Auchinvole and other Christians who make peace with gay marriage.

Just a clarification Scott. I would never presume nor dare to speak on behalf of another Christian for all of whom I have the deepest respect and admiration. My views and opinions here on KB have always been and are always my own reflection of the world as we live it, as I see it.

If I have ever phrased my posts in a way that contradicts that philosophy, that was unintentional and I apologise for lending obfuscation to the point I was making.

thedavincimode

What discrimination will you accept? That your surgeon be trained; the profession restricting entry? Your pilot periodically tested and properly licensed? The colour blind are excluded from commercial licences because they cannot pass the medical.

bhudson

What discrimination will you accept?

Well Dennis, given your examples were based on competency (2) and safety (colour-blindness) they are self-evident necessities. Unless of course you want someone untrained removing your brain tumor. [You can make a free market argument against the coercive implication of monopolistic professional regulatory bodies, but, that classical liberalism aside, they do provide some useful governance over practitioners.]

Scott

Reid, thanks for the clarification. Your comment about useful idiots was point 10 of an earlier post from you on this thread. However to clarify it is me that is attaching that label to Mr Auchinvole. He really was quite disagreeable on the select committee to opponents of gay marriage. Why he wants to get into bed with the likes of Kevin Hague is a mystery to me?

bhudson

@Reid,

You’re so wrapped up in what you so desperately want to believe is right that you can’t see that the arguments you try to level as to why same-sex couples should not be permitted to marry actually apply equally as to why heteros should not be permitted to marry either.

– it’s just a label – it doesn’t affect any rights and doesn’t mean anything
– labels are just social engineering – and that, by implication, is bad

Clearly, as you buy into the label of marriage between a man and a woman only, then you are also “fooled by the mask” as you’ve been socially engineered through that label [according to your argument above.]

Or, being true to your arguments, do you instead support the abolition of the designation of marriage for all?

Reid

You’re so wrapped up in what you so desperately want to believe is right that you can’t see that the arguments you try to level as to why same-sex couples should not be permitted to marry actually apply equally as to why heteros should not be permitted to marry either.

Excellent. Fallen into the trap bhudson. Like all the other useful idiots.

You see, of course the label is important. It’s in fact, vital. That’s precisely why they demand it. Not just want it, they demand it. They recognise its importance, unlike you useful idiots who don’t see any issue whatsoever, after all, it’s only a word, in your useful idiot view of the world.

What you useful idiots fail to recognise despite it having been pointed out to you numerous times throughout this entire debate is the meaning of the label: marriage. As in: what does that label, that word, that mere word, connote in western society indeed in all societies who no longer live as neanderthals, which is all of us alive today?

Well, what does it connote?

Nothing less than the procreation of societies. Life itself. The meaning of civilisation. For where does one learn about civilisation but from one’s “family?”

At this point the useful idiot brigade you included normally start braying about how come all married couples don’t have children and therefore marriage doesn’t mean family at all.

But you useful idiots are braying about something irrelevant for you’re not understanding social engineering.

See, social engineering operates not at the micro, individual marriage level, but at the macro, whole of society level. This is where the gay activists and Travistock operate and at no other level. Let’s leave aside all the useful idiot gays who really do think, like the rest of you straight useful idiots, that it’s about discwimination, and let’s just think about where the social engineers work, which is at this macro level, and let’s think ruthlessly and directedly at what might happen, in time, if gays get associated, not just associated, but conflated (look it up) with this most fundamental of human, that’s H-U-M-A-N, institutions.

Why, that institution, in terms of how people in years to come think about it, gets changed, doesn’t it. But how? Why, by the practices and mores of that new group of people who are now, by law, associated with it.

And what might those practices be? Well, what is the most fundamental basis of marriage? At the moment, it’s children, isn’t it. Most people, not all, but most, get hitched because they’ve sewn their wild oats, they want to “settle down” as the vernacular goes, and have a family. Notice this is “the vernacular,” as in, this is just what it means. There’s no question about it, there’s no thinking about it, it’s all just subconscious thought patterns spread throughout society, generation after generation, this is simply what happens, duh, no brainer, this is just life.

But suddenly, along come gays, into this natural, cross-civilisation, eons-old process. Insinuating themselves into it.

Normally at this point the useful idiots like yourself still shrug their shoulders. So what, they ask? This doesn’t change my marriage, this doesn’t change my neighbour’s marriage, all it means is one of my neighbours might be Adam and Steve with a couple of orphans the state has allowed them to bring up. What’s wrong with that? They seem nice, a lot nicer than some of my straight neighbours, the useful idiots say to themselves.

The point is, what is the basis of a gay marriage vs what is the basis of a heterosexual marriage? According to eons of civilisation, the basis of the latter is family. Children. According to eons of civilisation, the basis of the former is sex. You can’t argue with either of those things, they are facts, established throughout history, so don’t even try, although many useful idiots try to. By raising various irrelevancies such as childless couples, older people who marry, etc etc etc… But they are all irrelevant in the social engineering realm which is, as I said, dealing exclusively with the macro and not with individual instantiations.

But the point is in the social engineering realm by mixing the latter [sex] with the former [children] through a process of conflation, which is what gay marriage is, you homogenise the two concepts in people’s minds and the one becomes inseparable from the other. So today, marriage is inseparable from family, people automatically without even thinking, conflate the two together. Tomorrow, where many “marriages” aren’t at all about family, what pray tell, do you think the subconscious conflation is going to be?

As I said, this is not relevant to people today, this is relevant only to people who aren’t even born yet who grow up with a concept of marriage being a concept where gay couples based on sex and straight couples based on families all equal the same thing and if they one day decide to get “married” why who knows what that might mean.

You derisively referred above to the Illuminati as if they are some fictional entity bhudson. Well let me ask you another question and BTW, you still haven’t answered the first one I asked you above, so perhaps you’d care to attempt that as well, but let me ask you another: If your goal was to change society by destroying the main support mechanism that individuals have in society, which is these days, the family, would gay marriage be an effective mechanism to further that goal? Given that, if you conflate in humans the concept of sex for sex sake with the concept of family, that will over several generations destroy values that are critical for familial integrity. Values like fidelity, loyalty, sacrifice, perseverance all fly out the window, if the basis of one’s marriage is sex. Don’t they.

Yes, they do.

And you profoundly useful idiots are taking that line, on the basis of nothing at all. That’s what’s so wrong about your idiotic position. You can’t even point to any real discrimination, I mean if you think there is, where is it? Yet on that basis, on nothing at all, you fools are prepared to condemn the family unit, the concept, the social construct, that has built civilisation.

eszett

March 16th, 2013 at 3:53 pm
Tell me, Ezsett (3.37 post), how do you register your displeasure for a list MP’s conscience vote? The whole concept of a party vote is that it is free of the position of the list MP’s party.

Very easy, Jack5, the same way you would register your displeasure with your eloctorate MP. Don’t give them your vote!
If you want more you can let them know why you won give them your vote, let John Key know why you wont get them your vote. Email is easy and cheap.

Just look at ACT, how they were held accontable for heir antics, despite winning an electorate.

Under MMP you have more power than ever to hold MPs and parties to account.

gump

@Reid

“The point is, what is the basis of a gay marriage vs what is the basis of a heterosexual marriage? According to eons of civilisation, the basis of the latter is family. Children. According to eons of civilisation, the basis of the former is sex. You can’t argue with either of those things, they are facts, established throughout history, so don’t even try, although many useful idiots try to.”

————————————

Do you really think that the basis of gay marriage is sex? Really?

The basis is gay marriage is love, companionship, mutual understanding, and respect.

bhudson

bhudson

@Reid,

Thank you for admitting at least that marriage as one man and one woman is social engineering. Of course, given that, by implication at least, you hold social engineering to be a bad thing, you must also therefore hold that the label of marriage for heteros is also a bad thing.

You try to argue that marriage is “Nothing less than the procreation of societies. Life itself. The meaning of civilisation.” It is no such thing.

– children can be born and raised as perfectly normal, healthy, productive and ‘good’ members of society outside of marriage
– marriage vows have no reference to children
– children are not mandated in order to remain married

Your argument is wholly fallacious – it is without fact and without logic. It is merely a statement of how you would like things to be, not how they are in fact.

If I am a ‘useful idiot’, I read your rants and content myself that at least I am useful…

wat dabney

Are you married, Reid?

What will you do once your marriage is “destroyed” by the passing of this legislation?

I can imagine it now.

‘Get yer coat, love. It’s all over. An insignificant proportion of people somewhere are doing something I don’t approve of. They haven’t impacted me in the slightest. I don’t even know who they are. If it hadn’t been in the newspaper I wouldn’t even know it was happening. But you have to leave. You can keep the cat,it’s only fair. Just promise me you won’t marry it. Because now you could, I’m pretty sure. Curse you, Illuminati. You may have won this round…’

“They had the money, technology, resources, clandestine support, international networks and motive to put a covert Diabolical Black Human Cyborg in the Whitehouse to continue the 1000 Year THIRD REICH and its Satanic Principle of Aryan Planet Domination and the Annihilation of People of Color.”

And now it seems these same dark forces are working to “destroy” the institution of marriage by, er, allowing more people to marry.

Dennis Horne

From Scotland the Brave came Chris Auchinvole
Years this Pressy preached fine upon the soul
Now the right side of history he has found
No argument religious or morally be sound
Because fake marriage it is without the birth hole.

Shunda barunda

This is an extremely good example of what John Stringer was talking about.

Chris Auchinvole is a completely ineffectual electorate MP.
The West Coast was his electorate, he had it stitched up. Coasters were fed up with Labour and were prepared to give National another (rare) chance to lead our region ‘from the coal face’.

So what happened?

Nothing, that’s what happened.

He was a ghost, had no public presence, was wishy washy, followed the leader and spoke in cliches. His message seemed to be “I’m Scottish” followed by:”I come from Scottish heritage” followed by: “Scottish tradition says” and other meaningless appeals to the ‘authority’ of Scottish heritage. What the hell he thought that was going to achieve is beyond me, and talking with a plum in his mouth doesn’t exactly make him sound particularly Scottish, hell, if he had a thick Scottish accent it might actually make him more appealing.

The truth of the current state of NZ politics is revealed by this post by DPF magnificently.

To be considered a successful MP in NZ, it is no longer necessary to actually relate to ‘the people’ or your electorate, you simply have to relate well to the liberal progressive social agenda and articulate it well.
Make no mistake, Chris Auchinvole has done nothing else, absolutely nothing for his electorate at all, he is so out of touch it is almost painful to watch.

But here he is being fawned over by our liberal elite overlords as if he is one of the greatest parliamentarians our nation has produced.

Rodders

Dennis Horne

We exclude a whole section of society from gaining a commercial pilot licence: the colour blind. We accept and justify this discrimination on the basis of safety. (Colour blindness is of dubious significance in instrument flying, it’s historic, based on green/red lights for starboard/port and landing flares if radios fail!)

But the point is we do discriminate against 8% of men and offer a reason. So the argument that we must allow homosexual marriage because we cannot permit discrimination is not valid.

The only argument is, is the apparent discrimination valid? I believe it is. Since time immemorial marriage has concerned copulation and raising any children, never homosexual acts. You cannot change marriage fundamentally and claim it is the same. The harm done to the institution, the formal recognition of a natural family, the foundation of society, cannot be calculated or dismissed.

Worse, the only reason given to take this risk is to make homosexuals feel the same as heterosexuals. That is totally absurd. They are not and never will be.